Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Medication article issues[change source]

Hello, So we have an editor (W;ChangingUsername) who's created Medication articles however these articles all include;

  • side effects,
  • who can/cannot take it,
  • dosage/how to take them/length of taking/forgotten dosage
  • caution/conflict with other medications
  • taking whilst pregnant/breastfeeding

Examples of articles; Esomeprazole, Rabeprazole, Promethazine, Acrivastine, Cinnarizine, Chlorphenamine

My questions is: Is this content okay or should it all be removed and leave them looking like this diff?

Having this infomation in articles A) gives the impression we're a medication pamphlet as opposed to an encyclopedia, and B) I feel it could open doors to WMF being sued especially if someones followed the instructions here and it all went terribly wrong (I don't know much about the law so don't know if the WMF could be sued/held responsible etc)

Imagine if W;ChangingUsername unknowingly got the dosage wrong and someone reads it and assumes its correct and for instance takes 2 tablets instead of 1 - Of course I would hope no one would ever follow such instructions here but everyone is different, and taking into account the website we are and our viewers (whom may have mental disabilities and may not know better/different) it's a very stupid and dangerous game but I would like to seek others opinions before I go on a blanking spree,

Thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 19:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Thanks for raising this here. I had a conversation with the editor about this and I meant to get back to it but I haven't had a chance.
You are absolutely right. Wikipedia should not be giving instruction or advice about anything. In the case of medications, it's even more important because of the legal implications. Wikipedia is neither a how-to nor a medical provider. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to remove this kind of info. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Auntof6, You're welcome - I know I reverted this editors edits before somewhere and it resulted in one big drama so wanted to double check first,
I absolutely and 110% agree with your last statement and couldn't ever have put it any better myself - In all honestly I wonder if this editor is here for the wrong reasons but I guess that's another discussion for another venue, I'm genuinely shocked someone added this and thought it was okay but anyway I'll remove the content, Many thanks for your quick response/help it's greatly appreciated, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 20:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you want. Edit the article if needed. W;ChangingUsername (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging David and @2001:2020:30B:CD55:2993:E9D5:BB4F:B85A W;ChangingUsername (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@W;ChangingUsername theres no point in pinging an IP Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a shame. There was another editor on the statins medications talk W;ChangingUsername (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia articles for antipsychotic drugs have toilet plate text for discontinuation of the drugs and this is helpful.
Such things are framed in a way that instead of being a guide it is some info from a source. If everything was done this way i dont know if there would be issue :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paliperidone example W;ChangingUsername (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can change the article also. Change it if you want, and if i think something could go in after, it can be changed back and forth to make good articles

And when i edit those articles I will tag you so you're aware and can have input again in future better revisions W;ChangingUsername (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @W;ChangingUsername, Many thanks for remaining calm and patient - You're more than welcome to post here and ask editors if x, and y would be okay,
I'm not lecturing you but in case you weren't aware the Simple English Wikipedia is also for people with different needs, such as children, students, and adults with learning difficulties, and people who are trying to learn English and as I said those with mental disabilities whom may not understand may think it's okay to follow the instructions here,
I appreciate you expanding the articles and trying to be helpful but given the website we are and who we cater to I'm sure you can understand the seriousness and danger of including the information you have here, I would hate for the WMF or yourself to face legal ramifications over the content included/hosted, Anyway thanks again for remaining patient and calm throughout, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - As far as I can see I've removed all of the content from all articles, I've done various searches relating to keywords of the previous content and not getting any results so hoping i've removed all of the content, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont remove possible side effects from medications articles though W;ChangingUsername (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@W;ChangingUsername Too late - everything I listed above has now been deleted, You're more than welcome to start an RFC on having side effects listed here but given it's listed on any EN articles and given we're not a medical website - chances are there would be no consensus to host such information anyway, –Davey2010Talk 22:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fr33kman and Bluerasberry: 73.170.137.168 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur fr33kman 23:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont know what information would go into a wikipedia article, or why someone would search it, other than for things like effects/side effects, pharmacology, chemistry, pregnancy category and so on. Nor do i see what info could go in from a reference (like a paper from a study) besides these. It would be challenging to make long and informative articles without these info W;ChangingUsername (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Auntof6@Fr33kman and quoted
    I'm on a laptop soon so ill be able to put a lot of focus and attention into finishing Wikipedia so that it's in a state where people have something to add to, including me. And seeing as though OP took a bunch of articles and crack cocaine fumes and had another problem with me (the second or third) after a dispute previously, deleted (in a LOT of articles) all of my work and my barnstar i gave him for 'wasting a bunch of my life and time' and told me to go fuck myself and fuck off, and less than 2 hours later on the same day declared it done, these edits are getting reverted. Thanks.
    And please read this post carefully and look st this users actions in the future. I left it but you know what i am going to make the stroke page actually good too (the incorrect and fanfic/headcannon he wrote for an article) to make it proper again, because previously he has reverted my edits to his precious article.
    And seeing @Auntof6s numerous issues with my (and my reaction to them) compared.to his i still hope that it isn't someone abusing their power and being spiteful towards me, or that it won't lead to that happenening when I re-edit his whole article later. I will also be reverting the articles if not to how my own judgement sees it shojld be but how wikipedia writes their articles. Obviously simplified W;ChangingUsername (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking 4000 characters from every article a user have done so far is not acceptable and your stroke article is garbage too. These stubs youve.created may as well not exist.
    Likewise in my other barnstar as well as thanking you for wasting my time I congratulated you for making thr site worse. Congratulations again for doing that (again). Well done on making like 50 articles stubs with 0 information and taking away their purpose. Worthless admin or whatever useless title you have (i dont care)
    @Me Da Wikipedian W;ChangingUsername (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You pinged me, but I'm not an admin and I haven't done any of the above. Anyways, @W;ChangingUsername, please be more civil and remember that likwly they are trying to help. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is actually closer to 5000 characters & forgot to tag someone. @Eptalon W;ChangingUsername (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding information which English Wikipedia includes English Wikipedia includes most of this information, and I support restoring that. At the English Wikipedia Medical Manual of Style there are recommended section headings for drugs. "Side effects" is the same as "Adverse effects", "Medical uses" is always the first section and is "who can take it", "Dosage" English Wikipedia does not report and does not recommend including, "caution" is "drug interactions", and pregnancy goes in a section called "special populations" at the bottom although we frequently single out pregnancy as an extra-special, special case and put national regulatory pregnancy codes in the infobox. Overall most of this is essential information which is safe to include when backed by reliable sources. Talking through at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine could be helpful for confirming best practices. Everyone wants dosage also but the situation is that there is significant variation in medical recommendations country to country, in addition to the matter being very sensitive patient to patient. It is fine to talk generally about the effects of not enough, too much, or just write, but do not name numbers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would advise against some of these simplifications. While "adverse effects" and "side effects" mean the same thing, "medical uses" and "who can take it" are two different things. "Drug interactions" and "caution" are two completely different things.
    This is an issue, too, and goes back to what AuntOf6 and Davey2010 have mentioned. If we sound too much like a medication pamphlet, it is dangerous. Not only is it unencyclopedic, it can cause legal issues.
    The word "drug interactions" was chosen because it is a medical term, and has a broader scope than most "cautions"; it includes a more encyclopedic scope of information. These medicine articles aren't made specifically for those who are taking the medication, these articles are made for those who want to learn more about the subject.
    I bring this up mainly as a warning to be very careful when editing these articles. Even though something is true and is backed up by a source, it can still be dangerous if it disproportionately adds certain types of information. MrMeAndMrMeTalk 20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally seperate idea:What if we just made a template to put on top of every medical related article with a disclaimer saying "We are not a doctor and don't trust any medical advice from here" or some variety of that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this idea. That template already exists on it.wiki since 2011 for medical, legal and similar issues, see it:Template:Disclaimer. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this good Enough? I'm planning to improve it.
    (I know its not perfect and I accept criticism to improve the template.) Kirkukturk3 (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good! I changed how the image is shown and a part of the text. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also changed the way it looks to match similar notices. I used {{Ambox}}. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Kirkukturk3 (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    please specify "do not replace medical advice" to "do not replace medical advice by a professional" as this is in fact medical advice. @Kirkukturk3 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Kirkukturk3 (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree - The content was only included in order for the article(s) to be acted as a pamphlet(s), For example;[1][2]
(I originally pasted side effects from 2 articles however it looked better in my head than it did on paper so removed the sections/examples
I would have no objections to things going back providing they're not telling the person what to do which every section is –Davey2010Talk 11:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea of the disclaimer is too say "Yes, were telling you what to do, but we might be wrong, so ask your doctor". @Davey2010 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather it just be worded in ways that didn't tell people what to do but I guess if that cannot be achieved then sure I'd settle for a disclaimer, I mean there's nothing stopping anyone from finding the information online anyway, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    " there's nothing stopping anyone from finding the information online anyway" - True of most information on Wikipedia. @Davey2010 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are phrased that way in the source. The article mentions in 'side effects' that in the medicine box there will be a pamphlet. There are a lot of sites for information online but simple wiki may be their only source. W;ChangingUsername (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what applies to any article, also applies to articles about drugs or diseases
    • Since anyone can edit, we cannot guarantee that the information given is accurate, or correct
    • Even if it is, making a diagnosis takes a healthcare professional. There's a reason people study 5 years or more to be a doctor of medicine, or a pharmacist (who knowns about drugs)
    • Even if the information is accurate, it might not apply in your specific case.
    • Side-effects can be very specific, the more "common" a side-effect is, the more likely you'll find it in the product brochure.
    • Wikipedia can be there for general information, but if you need more specific information ask your doctor/healthcare professional
    Keeping that in mind, there is no harm in saying "With this condition, usually either drug A, B, or C are given. Drug A usually has these side-effects..." - Remember, we are an encyclopedia, there's no "forbidden knoweldge". Eptalon (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The common (1 in 100) side effects should be included because they are likely to happen. It's a pretty safe bet that they will. Also the side effects risks can be confirmed in the medicine packet as was mentioned. Also the information is all sourced from the NHS gov website. W;ChangingUsername (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than that, likely what we need: Is it safe during pregnancy, what are other drugs it doesn't go with well/at all. And as always, we are there for information. We cannot replace a healthcare professional. Eptalon (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something is rotten in the "land" of Stars?[change source]

IP seems to be cranking out c. 4 articles per day.--See Talk:Westerhout 49-7.--Not wikified (i.e. No category).--Source: i dunno if the source is notable. Other "problems"? Thoughts? 2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Simple-wiki should come up with a checklist of things that should be done, when one starts an article about a star (or a star in Space).--Such a checklist should maybe have recommended sources, about "new et cetera" stars. Thoughts? 2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) / 2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA[reply]

Update: Nine articles in half of a day.--That might turn out to be a problem, if the articles are not ready for this encyclopedia, at this time. 2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, such a checklist is generally not very neccessary — if someone wants to make a guide like this, they make it on their userspace, such as the one AuntOf6 made. Since many wikipedians have their own different opinions about what should be in an article, it is difficult to make a well made main page that goes beyond a simple idea such as to Be Bold. MrMeAndMrMeTalk 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2MASS J04285096-2253227 is a red-link (at English-wiki), and mentioned in
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brown_dwarfs#Unconfirmed_brown_dwarfs . --I am thinking it should get USERIFY / USERFY, or be QD.--Please consider doing one or the other in a timely manner, so that the user will "get a message" that articles have to be of a certain standard, in stead of flooding us with half-a$$ sub-stubs. 2001:2020:309:AE06:91C2:2F5C:DA4:E781 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are notable per en:NASTRO or en:NASTCRIT. This is fairly obviously not notable, but I am not sure that it necessarily falls under QD. Would it be possible for an admin to mass delete these pages, or does it all have to be put through RFD?(or maybe just one RFD page for all of IP's articles?) MrMeAndMrMeTalk 15:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather awkwardly, a few of the articles actually are based on subjects that are notable. So some checking will have to be done the manual (painful) way. --Ferien (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westerhout 49-2, En-wiki has an article about that, and the history of that article goes back for for some years.
Link, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westerhout_49-2
, 2001:2020:309:AE06:91C2:2F5C:DA4:E781 (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
IP blocked for a week, while we work out what to do with the articles for the moment. --Ferien (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simple solution: if a title also exists (as a title) at En-wiki, then be gentle.--For the other articles, press the switch that says "Czar bomb" (or nuke).--Please note that there are dubious entries on (astronomy) Lists at En-wiki. (For elaboration, see

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#List_of_brown_dwarfs
. 2001:2020:345:A57A:CCB8:F39D:CE66:9C82 (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Westerhout 49-2 (and Westerhout 49). I think all the other objects, linked individually in this thread can be nuked first. 2001:2020:345:A57A:CCB8:F39D:CE66:9C82 (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript[change source]

People are copying JavaScript from EN Wikipedia. Is it okay? Cactus spiky ouch 12:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For user scripts and the like? No reason why not. All content on En-wiki is covered by CC-BY-SA, that includes script. If it's malicious, then that's a problem. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without attribution? Cactus spiky ouch 06:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hmm? Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of thing are we talking about? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redwarn Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there was one more, but I forgot Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cant you just import the script from enwiki? In some cases it's possible, you'd use something like importScript('W:User:RedWarn/.js'); //Linkback: W:User:RedWarn/.js Added by Script installer.
Someone slightly more adept at redwarn may be able to tell if this works. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, okay Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 08:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herakles/Hercules[change source]

These pages are a mess, mainly caused by not being clear about their historical sequence. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: discussion at Talk:Herakles Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 11:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The future of Good/Very Good articles[change source]

Hello all, Good Aruicles, and Very Good Aricles were a nice idea at the time. They are flags that say that a given article has a better quality than other articles. There's just one problen though: Except for me, no one has been promoting these articles, and if they sit in the queue for too long, it is clear that the proposers lose interest. If one month from now (mid August), there are no other people promoting, I propose we do away with the idea. Our community is small already, and getting an article to meet GA or VGA criteria is a huge effort. What do other people think? Eptalon (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to go through any I haven't commented on and give them a promote/fail if there's a consensus. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The GA/VGA process has been slow for a long time, but I think it's good to keep it around. It's a nice way to motivate people to make pages that stand out in quality (I know that the thought of getting a page to 'Good Article' status has at least made me put my best work into translating & writing, I wouldn't like to speak for anyone else).
Maybe we should change the process to be more similar to how English wiki does it? The biggest obstacle I've noticed is simply getting enough users to vote for an article to have a consensus. Having one user do a much more involved review might help with that - right now, it takes months for something to pass, even if it has a clear consensus given by a small number of editors. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe a system of fewer, more in-depth reviews would do good in helping get more GA/VGA's through. LV 15:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will always be supportive of the GA/VGA process. I think the idea of elevating articles to VGA statuses and having them on the front page is essential for Simple Wiki. I'd be happy to promote articles :) Is there like a guideline/instructions on how to do so or is promoting articles an admin-only thing? I also think that even if you voted to support a promotion, you could still promote the article given the little active users we have on this project. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently confirmed that it isn't an admin activity and can be done by anyone. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of it: If you (as an established editor) thin that there is enough support for promoting it, and that there are no major issues left to solve, then you can promote the article. I read "enough support" as 3 supporting votes, and ideally no oppose votes by established editors. Promoting entails updating the tag from pga/pvga to ga/vga, and updating the listing. In the case of VGAs, a blurb to appear on the main page needs to be there as well. Eptalon (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. I already promoted one article. Could I also promote an article that I nominated, in this case Christopher Plummer? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you judge it the same way as you would judge another article, I honestly don't see why not. Oh,I forgot: after promoting or denoting, you should also write a message in Simple Talk... Eptalon (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi Sunak semi-protected...[change source]

Hello all, there were elections in the UK a few days back, and Sunak's party lost. There are likely many people who do ont agree with his policies or actions. I have therefore semi-protected the page, for two weeks. Eptalon (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seems reasonable Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 08:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia[change source]

There is a proposal at Category talk:Wikipedia#Proposal to split this category. Please reply on that page. 73.170.137.168 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is ending soon[change source]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

This is a kind reminder that the voting period to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter will be closed on July 9, 2024, at 23:59 UTC.

If you have not voted yet, please vote on SecurePoll.

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 03:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sulphate[change source]

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sulphate&oldid=9636526

The current version is dead wrong.--Please have it either QD, or put up for Delete discussion. ASAP.--Alternatively, have the page remain a laughing stock (on the Wikipedia that Jimbo Wales created).--The ball is in your court (and i might not be adding to this thread). 2001:2020:357:A2F3:E82C:920C:6BD0:F92E (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC) / 2001:2020:357:A2F3:C5A3:205D:48AE:EE45 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:2020:357:A2F3:E82C:920C:6BD0:F92E: Exactly which QD criteria does it meet? "I don't like the content" isn't one. You should review Deletion is not cleanup rule on Wikipedia. You are proving to be a very severe and on-going WP:CIR concern. Operator873 connect 22:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it is "your" version of the page, that I have mentioned specifically.--A third wikipedia-user has not been militant about "his" version that has been shot-down (and that does not have consensus).--I have pointed out which versions are dead wrong (and the community has been advised to get the wheels in motion (ASAP), for Delete of the article , if the current version is going to stand).--This Master class is a freebie (and i might not be adding to this thread).--Other master classes might be available from other "purveyors". 2001:2020:357:A2F3:C5A3:205D:48AE:EE45 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's my version of the page... but I didn't write it. I agreed with the edit from another administrator and restored it. You know what that's called? Consensus. YOU do not determine the content of the encyclopedia. Inaccuracy or problems on a page are not criteria for deletion. Finally, you hold no authority to determine what gets "shot down" and what remains. I'll remind you that you're on final warning for conduct and behavior. :) Operator873 connect 22:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with you adding parts that are dead wrong.--(I am not going to go back and see if you did that twice, or only once.)--I have made my recommendation to the community (and i might not be adding to this thread).--About this thread, an option might be "Humble pie". Someone else will likely come along and fill in the details. Bye, 2001:2020:357:A2F3:C5A3:205D:48AE:EE45 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you want - you ask others to nominate for deletion. If you believe an article either needs fixing or deletion, you should be the change you need. See this essay on it on enwiki - W:WP:SOFIXIT. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate the File namespace[change source]

Many languages of Wikipedia allow fair-use pictures. But we don't allow them in Simple English Wikipedia. So I want to deprecate the File namespace. That is, we want to declare the namespace to be obsolete in this language. Sbb1413 (he) (talkchanges) 08:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: I'm not sure what form that would take, but we do have a few files here. The ones we have are administrative and are mostly recordings of Simple English articles -- remember that not all files are images. Therefore we couldn't completely eliminate the file namespace. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation[change source]

There should be an article for creation on this wiki, like EN Wiki, so that there won't be so many nonsensical pages created, and the backlog would decrease significantly. Thanks Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 08:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme An AfC-like process has been rejected by the community many times so I doubt that this proposal will go anywhere.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read through the archives before proposing such thing. Sbb1413 (he) (talkchanges) 09:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, my bad. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 11:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then closing Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 11:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: Also, that wouldn't stop people from creating bad pages. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it would not show up in mainspace Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done

Website to non-free picture[change source]

Joe Bloggs
Joe Bloggs in 1987 [example of a free picture]
BirthJuly 4, 1969
DeathMay 16, 2021
Joe Bloggs
PictureJoe Bloggs in 1987 [example of a non-free picture]
BirthJuly 4, 1969
DeathMay 16, 2021

Sometimes, we try to add a non-free picture in subjects without any free pictures. But we don't allow them here. So we should make changes to the infoboxes to add a parameter to add a website to a non-free picture. I'm showing its example at the right. Sbb1413 (he) (talkchanges) 08:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thank you for suggesting it, but I do not see the point in this. It does not look very good in the infobox and you can simply search for the picture on the web. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we try to keep many of our templates the same as enwiki's to make maintenance easier, and such a change would conflict with that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given Simple and EN Wikipedias are generally the same it's a shame we can't use EN images or at least upload images locally like EN, I know we're Simple and all but it's still never made sense to me why we can't, Anyway like above I don't see the point of having placeholder images either so oppose, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been flogging that horse for years. I've forgotten how many times I've asked the community to allow local images. :-| fr33kman 09:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fr33kman Ah okay I didn't know that, that makes me sad now I know you tried and seemingly got nowhere :(,
    Given article layout, templates, navboxes, modules... virtually everything goes back to EN you'd think they'd have the sense to say "Images uploaded to EN can also exclusively be used on Simple" or as I said upload locally .... guess this is all hot air and forever will be, shame really, –Davey2010Talk 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plaxton Pointer[change source]

We are discussing the introduction to this article (Plaxton Pointer), and would appreciate opinions and suggestions. Kdammers (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: discussion at Talk:Plaxton Pointer Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U4C Special Election - Call for Candidates[change source]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

A special election has been called to fill additional vacancies on the U4C. The call for candidates phase is open from now through July 19, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications in the special election for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

In this special election, according to chapter 2 of the U4C charter, there are 9 seats available on the U4C: four community-at-large seats and five regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement. No more than two members of the U4C can be elected from the same home wiki. Therefore, candidates must not have English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, or Italian Wikipedia as their home wiki.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

In cooperation with the U4C,

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft namespace[change source]

Should we, like enwiki, have a Draft namespace? It might encourage greater cooperation to edit articles. fr33kman 04:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how it works on enwiki? I thought people write their drafts and then they got either approved or denied (by whom, I don't know). -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well...anyone can write a draft on enwiki. Users not autoconfirmed can't create articles in the mainspace. In order to get a draft published to mainspace, an autoconfirmed user can just move it. A non-autoconfirmed user can submit it for review through AFC, where it is reviewed by an experienced AFC reviewer.
The Draft namespace (at least on enwiki) isn't for editing, just for eventually bringing a not fully complete article to mainspace. I actually do think that a Draft namespace would be helpful (for all those half-baked, unsourced pages to be in a for a it), but the issue that we would need some way, like enwiki, to get non-autoconfirmed user's articles out of draftspace (and AFC would be really annoying to implement here as there's much less users). @Auntof6@Fr33kman Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think this would add a lot of overhead, with little to no benefit to this wiki Eptalon (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Ideally, we could have it such that non-autoconfirmed users could move it form draftspace (in which case I think draftspace would be helpful), but otherwise I think it would do more harm than good. @Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Me Da Wikipedian Non-autoconfirmed users can't move pages at all. 73.170.137.168 (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, that's my point. It would only work if they could move pages from draftspace. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People who committed suicide?[change source]

Category:People who committed suicide is very bulky and not simple. Perhaps we ought to move this category to either Category:Deaths by suicide or simply Category:Suicides? MrMeAndMrMeTalk 21:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems like a better category Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 01:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suicides Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 03:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suicides as the simplest one. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Suicide victims'? Would allow to also have a category for those who survived Eptalon (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon I do not understand what your mean. Sorry Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all people are successful committing suicides. The wording I proposed would allow to keep track of people who survived an attempt Eptalon (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon oh okay Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 11:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the exact figures, but I heard that some people who jump in front of a train actually survive. Don't ask what they look like afterwards, but still. Also, manufacturers of sleeping pills have made it more difficult to commit suicide that way. In that respect, it would perhaps make sense to have a cattegory to hold both those that were successful, and those that weren't. Eptalon (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon Not all people who died by suicide are "victims" though. Think about Cato the Younger. "Victims" is a bit POVish as well, because not every culture sees suicides as victims. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to actually vote, sorry. My vote is Support Category:Suicides ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 11:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suicides as per above, also matches EN (en:Category:People who committed suicide redirects to en:Category:Suicides), –Davey2010Talk 12:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support More simple. Cyclonical (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrMeAndMrMe seems like the community approve this idea Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 11:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How come I can create new pages as an IP but I can't on English wikipedia[change source]

Basically, if an IP wanted to create the page TFYUIGYIYIOPHBOUYDIVGHDGIOUDBY on simple.wikipedia.org, they would be able to, but if they wanted to create the page on English wikipedia, they can't. Why is that? 24.115.255.37 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On en wikipedia, you need to submit the article for review and an reviwer will take a look at it if it is acceptable to be on mainspace. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 01:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why isn't that the case on Simple? 24.115.255.37 (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simple do not have articles for creation Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also please do not create the page as it would be nonsense Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 01:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to I was just using it as an example 24.115.255.37 (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rules on different languages Wikipedias are different. We don't have any requirement to go through Articles for Creation. Enwiki only enacted it a few years back. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In very short terms: This community is much smaller than EnWp, and it believes that deep down most IP editors are good people who create useful content. There's no reason to keep an IP from creating an article. Note: there are quick dleetion criteria, a few of them let us delete articles that are nonsense. Admins regularly delete such articles. IP editors who create a few bad pages may be bloked. First the blocks are short, later the blocks are longer. In short: there is no need to prevent IP edittors from creating (hopefully meaningful) articles.
Creating an account isn't necessary, but it has benefits:
  • You can vote in elections
  • If your account has a cetain age, and you have done a number of edits, you will be able ot edit semu-protected pages.
Eptalon (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 confusion[change source]

In the page All About That Bass#Certifications, citation 122 has an error that says that the reference has no access date or url. This should not be an issue. The issue seems to be in the template, since the reference itself in the article does not show any url or access date, however I do not know what the issue is. Is there any way to fix this? MrMeAndMrMeTalk 01:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried updating the templates regarding Template:Certification Table Entry, but nothing seems to have worked. (sorry if I broke something) It looks like this happens at every instance of an ARIA chart, and it has something to do with Template:Cite certification, but I still do not know why there is an issue. MrMeAndMrMeTalk 01:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to move a guideline page[change source]

On Simple English Wikipedia we do not create pages, we start them, so I am asking if we can move Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes to Wikipedia:Do not start hoaxes. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest moving Wikipedia:Why create an account? to Wikipedia:Why make an account?. MrMeAndMrMeTalk 23:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About editing[change source]

Hello, I am an editor from Wikipedia and I am interested in also editing in Simple Wikipedia. Is there anything different about editing Simple Wikipedia that I should know besides to make it in simple English? Zabro29 (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Some things here are different from how they are on English Wikipedia (for example, anyone can put new pages on the mainspace), but most of it is similar. I would recommend checking out Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages - it has great info on how to write in Simple English. If you need any help, feel free to ask! 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say “Anyone can put new pages on the mainspace”, does this mean that I can create a new article without having to go through a process? Zabro29 (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can publish new articles immediately. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Can’t wait to contribute to here Zabro29 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zabro29 I add a welcome template to your talk page, User talk:Zabro29. There are some useful links there. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 11:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome here! You may be interested in reading Wikipedia:An English Wikipedian's guide. Hope you choose to stay and help us :) ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving me the guide, that helped me Zabro29 (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zabro29: Welcome. In addition to the things mentioned above, you might be interested in this list I maintain of some things that are different here. The list is not a policy or guideline, but it links to some relevant policies and guidelines. If you have any questions about it, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complex wording in infobox[change source]

Can someone help to simplify the wording in this infobox: Enumclaw horse sex case? Or should it just be left as it is? I don't think "Acute peritonitis caused by traumatic perforation of the colon" or "Laws passed criminalizing bestiality and zoophilic pornography" are simple. 2607:F140:6000:802A:4E1:5FBE:B05:C96 (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]